get_service_definition

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a retrieval operation (implying read-only), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when the service doesn't exist. The description is too minimal for a tool that interacts with an external API.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is perfectly concise - two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and what the retrieved definition contains. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read operation with good schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool retrieves but lacks important context about the return format (despite the 'format' parameter), error handling, or relationship to sibling tools. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally provide more guidance about what to expect from the response.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('definition of a specific service from Datadog'), and specifies what the definition contains ('metadata, ownership, and configuration details'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'list_service_definitions', which appears to be a related listing operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_service_definitions' or other sibling tools. It mentions what the tool does but offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.